PAN
Autonomous news service powered by parity readings
What this is
An automated news service where several AI agents write conflicting takes on the same story and a fourth agent reconciles them into one article. A media product for readers, not a work or creator tool.
Our one-line summary — not the founder’s tagline.
- How it works
- For each news story, three AI agents write independent takes (a generous read, a strictly factual read, and a red-team critical read), a fourth agent reconciles factual conflicts between them, and a fifth merges everything into one published article, with the three original reads and their opinion balance shown in a sidebar. No human editor reviews the output, and publication typically takes 90-180 seconds from ingest.
- What's different
- Publishes with no human editorial review, and shows readers the underlying disagreement between the AI reads rather than hiding it behind a single voice.
- Best for
- Readers curious about a news event from multiple angles at once rather than a single editorial take.
- Watch out
- No human editor reviews articles before publication.
What we measured
Nobody else publishes this — it comes from knocking on the door every day.
- Watched by us
- 18 days
- Last checked
- 9d ago
The numbersIs it still shipping, is it overpriced, where did it land — and what the price is built from.
League price & chart
No money. No seat. It goes on your record — and in 28 days reality settles it.
Calls are closed while we rebuild accounts. You can still read every one of them.
AI. Launched 18d ago on PeerPush, where it placed #513. Today, it's been quiet for 15 days and the price has started to bleed.
Already bleeding a little every day, and it accelerates the longer it stays quiet.
We check this site every day, ourselves. A founder can post “still working on it” — a claim like that doesn't price. What we price is what we can verify from the outside: evidence, not announcements. The real question isn't “will this be huge?” — it's “will they still be moving in four weeks?”
The market viewHow this launch is priced and ranked in our league — the investor side of the page.
ranked by the reality anchor, not the market price
It placed #513 on PeerPush with 3 votes.
No matter how much money goes in. There is no pump here — you can't make yourself right by buying more. The line only moves on things that actually happened: an award, revenue that grew, a new platform, code that shipped — or silence.
En eski 4 hareket bu listede yok — toplam 16 olay var. 1 quiet day in between are left out — nothing happened on them. A launch that goes quiet eases down a little at a time — never a cliff you could have run from the night before.
Daily tracking just started for this launch — the first point is on the board. A second reading lands with tomorrow's run, and the curve builds from there.
How the launch is moving on its own board, day by day — the crowd's attention.
A flat line is normal: votes stop within a day or two of launch, on every board. What's unusual — and what actually counts — is a launch that keeps pulling votes long after its day is over.
About
AN started as a research question at Parallax AI: what happens if you force three AI agents to deliberately disagree about the same news event — and then make a fourth one reconcile them in writing? How it works: Every story goes through five passes before publication: Positive read — an agent steelmans the most generous interpretation Neutral read — strictly factual, dateline-style, evaluative language forbidden Negative read — a good-faith red-team pass that surfaces what the press release doesn't want you to ask Cross-read — a fourth agent resolves factual conflicts between the three, against source Synthesis — a fifth agent merges everything into one article The three reads stay visible in the sidebar, with the opinion balance shown as percentages (e.g. +30% / =45% / −25%). No human editor touches the output. Wall time from ingest to publish: typically 90–180 seconds. What surprised us after 18 months of internal beta: the output is more cautious than a single-author newsroom — it admits uncertainty by construction and surfaces conflicts a single writer would tend to flatten. We honestly expected it to be more boring. It isn't. What PAN is not: Not a wire service — we don't break news, we synthesize it. Our value is the read at 06:14, not 06:01. Not an opinion outlet — there's no editorial column. The synthesis is constrained to reconcile, not argue. Not anonymous — every article carries its pipeline version number, full source citations, and a note that no human reviewed it. The missing byline is a claim, not an evasion. PAN is one of four public services built on the same multi-perspective method — the others cover historical events, legal decisions, and claim-by-claim fact verification. I'd love your honest takes on: Do the three visible reads actually change how you trust (or distrust) an article? Is "no human editor" a feature or a bug to you? Genuinely curious where the line is. Corrections are automated within 6 hours — and yes, that applies to feedback from this thread too. 🙂
Where it launched
1 platform| Platform | Votes | Counts toward price | Link |
|---|---|---|---|
| PeerPush | 3 | sets the price | ↗ |
The board it did best on sets the price. Every other board only adds to it if the launch also placed high on that board too — because just showing up somewhere isn't an achievement. Listing on twelve directories is free; placing well on them isn't.
Discussion (0)
No thesis posted yet. Be the first.